Cookies

We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse the International Law Office website, we will assume you are happy to receive all of our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Your Subscription

We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.

Updates

Intellectual Property

​Following the Court of Appeal decision in the Assos v Asos trademark dispute, there have been two interesting developments which affect it. First, the Supreme Court has refused permission to appeal the Court of Appeal decision; second, the European Commission has set out plans to change the law so that the 'own name' defence will no longer apply to corporations.

The Court of Appeal has held that use of the 'ASOS' brand by well-known online clothing retailer Asos created a likelihood of confusion with and damaged the distinctive character of the earlier ASSOS Community trademarks owned by Assos, the specialist cycle clothing retailer, but that Asos could nonetheless rely on the 'own name' defence to avoid trademark infringement.

In proceedings in which the defendants had already been found liable for passing off and trademark infringement in respect of the BETTY BOOP trademarks, the High Court has rejected the defendants' application to have the remaining copyright infringement and trademark invalidity proceedings stayed in favour of earlier, related Italian proceedings.

The High Court has again shown its support for copyright holders, granting six major film companies blocking orders under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 against the six main UK internet service providers (ISPs). This is the latest in a line of cases in which copyright owners have relied on the act to obtain blocking orders against ISPs. However, the case highlighted two remaining uncertainties in this area of law.

The Court of Appeal has issued its decision in the lengthy SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Limited litigation concerning the status of copyright in computer functionality. The court reached the same conclusion as the High Court, but disagreed with the High Court's reasoning in a number of key areas. The decision is a useful reminder of the perils of sharing computer program functionality in literature associated with the program.

The High Court recently held that Topshop's unauthorised use of pop star Rihanna's image amounted to passing off. While previous cases have established that passing off can be used to prevent or compensate for the unauthorised use of a celebrity's image in false endorsement cases, this is the first English decision in which the principle has been extended to the unauthorised use of a celebrity's image in merchandising.

Tech, Data, Telecoms & Media

The High Court has again shown its support for copyright holders, granting six major film companies blocking orders under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 against the six main UK internet service providers (ISPs). This is the latest in a line of cases in which copyright owners have relied on the act to obtain blocking orders against ISPs. However, the case highlighted two remaining uncertainties in this area of law.